the investigative reports of david w runyan II

Investigative Report 

Route 2 Ramp at South Athol Road 

Copyright 2018 by David W. Runyan II 

Other Reports by David W. Runyan II

The Politics of the Bidwell Forest Part 1

The Politics of the Bidwell Forest Part II

The Politics of the Bidwell Forest Part III

Introduction 

***UPDATE 6/20/23*** The ramp has failed to obtain funding, Southie is safe . . . for now.

The Town of Athol has recently petitioned the state to add a ramp connecting South Athol Road to highway Route 2. This is nothing new. Town officials have made this request repeatedly over the past 30 years and the state has repeatedly declined those requests. But the town is relentless, and this time they seem to have a sympathetic ear at MRPC so the request has gained traction as it makes its way over to DOT.

The purpose of this report is not to rally the people of Athol in opposition to the proposed ramp. That would be a wasted effort. The people will have no say in the matter. Route 2 is owned by the state and the decision whether to add a ramp will be made at the state level following the usual procedures and protocol.

The purpose of this report is to help the people of Athol understand whether or not the ramp is necessary and why town officials are so eager to have a ramp at that particular location. It also helps people understand the impending consequences of the ramp and presents options for neutralizing those consequences.

Route 2 Ramp at South Athol Road

Is a ramp on South Athol Road justifiably necessary for the Town of Athol?

The standard reasons to add a ramp include: population growth, public accessibility problems, traffic congestion relief, and future economic planning. So let's examine these issues.

Population Growth

In the data below we find that the population of Athol has been essentially unchanged for the past 90 years. It's a town of 11,000 +/- 5%. The town is not in the grips of a population explosion.

Growth is not a valid factor in justifying the need for this ramp.

Public Accessibility

Next, let's examine whether the proposed ramp is necessary to service the accessibility needs of the majority of residents.

As we can see in this street map, about 80% of Athol's population is corralled into neighborhoods along Route 2A, all of which are presently serviced far more efficiently by the existing ramps at exits 18, 17 and 16 than they would be by a ramp at South Athol Road. 

Public access is not a valid factor in justifying the need for this ramp.

                                                                        Source: Google Maps

Claiming that residents returning to town from the east would be inclined to drive 3-4 miles past exits 18 or 17 and then backtrack an additional 3 miles into town is a ridiculously absurd notion. By the time they reached South Athol Road they would already be home. Residents returning from the west would, to a lesser extent, be disinclined to pass exit 16 and take South Athol Road back into town. But eastbound traffic is not the alleged problem. All the activity is supposedly at Exit 18 and related to westbound traffic.

If there was a genuine access need for an additional ramp then the more logical choice would be Pleasant Street. Both the avoidance of the Pleasant Street option and the insistence upon the South Athol Road option are curiosities for sure, but not the subject matter of this particular investigative report.

Traffic Congestion

So now let's address the current state of traffic congestion in Athol.

There is no congestion. 

I'm not being facetious. 

Main Street (Route 2a) flows along nicely even at rush hour from one end of town to the other. The traffic lights at Pleasant Street and Exchange Street cause backups of about 10 vehicles which last about 45 seconds. At our existing highway ramps there are also no backups. At exit 18 during rush hour the line might be 6-8 cars in length while at exits 17 and 16 the line might be 3-4 cars.

People in most other parts of the state would be delighted to trade their congestion for ours.

Traffic congestion is not a valid factor in justifying the need for this ramp. 

The only congestion ever mentioned by town officials is future congestion at Exit 18 as the Market Basket Plaza expands and gains popularity. If that were to happen, people would simply use exits 19 or 17 to avoid any serious backups at Exit 18. 

Economic Planning

We have ruled out population growth, public accessibility and traffic congestion from the justification equation leaving only the future economic planning element and here's where things get real interesting.

Why are town officials fixated upon this unnecessary infrastructure project?

I have a theory:

The town is hinting that it would like to industrialize South Athol from Patridgeville Road to Route 2 and beyond as a means of expanding the tax base because residential property taxes have flat-lined but the town's debt continues to rise precipitously. Rather than being responsible, getting costs under control and living within their means, town officials prefer to create new revenue.

Let's tune in to the town manager where he explains the revenue benefits from Market Basket Plaza and includes a parenthetic comment about a shift from residential to CIP (commercial/industrial/professional) taxpayers.

And let's tune in again where the town manager hints at industrialization of South Athol.

The town manager makes it clear that the plan is to "economically develop" both the Bidwell Forest and South Athol Road and he links the ramp to the plan.

The Grand Plan

Link: Sustainability Plan

But the plan has a few glitches; least of which is the ramp.

1 - Over the years town officials have attempted to rezone South Athol from residential C to industrial but the voters rejected those changes. They are likely to reject any future zoning change as well.

2 - The cornerstone of the town's plans to industrial South Athol is the 100-acre Bidwell Forest which the town purchased in 2009. The problem with industrializing that parcel is that when the people voted to approve that purchase they did so after town officials told them it would be used as a municipal land bank for schools, ball fields, a new firehouse, open spaces, and in small print, “other uses”. Voters are unlikely to approve a bait & switch use. For more information, see this report: Bidwell Part I

3 - During the past 30 years there have been several attempts by local governments in our region to "create jobs" but in each case the result was complete failure. Asking voters to change zoning, change the use of the Bidwell Forest and take on debt for infrastructure spending in exchange for jobs may be a political plea which falls on deaf ears. For more information, see this report: Bidwell Part II

In the end, voter approval for the economic development of South Athol is uncertain. Using it as justification for the ramp is premature and frivolous.

Side Issue

As a part of my investigative work, I checked in with George Snow at Montachusett Regional Planning Commission to see how the ramp request was progressing. MRPC is the agency which conducts traffic and feasibility studies and then sends their recommendations along to the Massachusetts Department of Transportation for funding.

In my opinion Mr. Snow should be a watchdog for the taxpayer and an objective examiner. Instead he seems to be suspiciously in favor of this frivolous request and is justifying the spending of $25-million taxpayer dollars based upon some rather flimsy or exaggerated factors such as the absurd notion that 60 trailer trucks per day use Hapgood Street and create air pollution with their engine brakes. To his credit, he did go into great detail about how essential this ramp is (in his opinion) to future economic development and by so doing he confirmed both the true motives of town officials and his own complicity.

from the MRPC website

Conclusion

Summarizing matters, my investigation reveals that the ramp represents no immediate benefit to the people of Athol. It also reveals that future economic development along South Athol Road is not a certainty for a variety of reasons.

So if the people of Athol derive no benefit from the ramp at South Athol Road, who does? The answer to that question is found in: Bidwell Part III

In closing, the people of Athol are not able to control whether a ramp is added to South Athol Road. To the contrary, indications are that those involved in the process are operating full speed ahead despite the fact that the ramp is unnecessary. The ramp therefore appears set to become an eventual certainty.

But that doesn't mean the people have no recourse. They can neuter the effects of the ramp by rejecting zoning changes for South Athol Road and by rejecting any proposed industrial or economic development uses for the Bidwell Forest. If the people of Athol do not want the rural charm of South Athol permanently destroyed, they do have ways and means to help them resist these impending threats.

It is the opinion of this reporter that town officials should abandon their pursuit of the ramp and their plans to economically develop South Athol Road and the Bidwell Forest. Regarding the Bidwell Forest in particular, it should be held in reserve for future schools, ball fields, fire stations and other municipal uses as originally stated to the people of Athol.

Other Reports by David W. Runyan II

The Politics of the Bidwell Forest Part 1
The Politics of the Bidwell Forest Part II

The Politics of the Bidwell Forest Part III

The Commercial Solar Conundrum

Text of my email to George Snow of MRPC, dated July 17, 2018

Good Morning, Mr. Snow.

Thank you for being so generous with your time and forthcoming with results from the feasibility study for a ramp at Route 2 and South Athol Road.

Some of those results are inconsistent with my observations as a resident of the region so I present an overview for your consideration.

Pursuant to your statement that an average of 60 trailer trucks per day service Girardi, Whipps and Pexco via 2A (exit 18) to Hapgood Street I respond as follows:

1 - Hapgood Street is rarely used by trailer trucks due to the extremely steep grade. The preferred route is Daniel Shays (exit 16) to Partridgeville to South Athol Road as this route is flatter, has higher speed limits, less traffic, and gets you there in about the same amount of time.

2 - Girardi has a fleet of 10-wheel box trucks to deliver product to its local market. It does not ship product in trailer trucks but does receive by trailer truck infrequently.

3 - Whipps manufactures large water control systems which take days and weeks to complete so they ship perhaps one or two units per week and receive raw materials by trailer truck infrequently.

4 - Pexco ships and receives daily by trailer truck accounting for perhaps 10/day.

5 - 60 trailer trucks/day using Hapgood is simply far fetched. The traffic study methodology is either flawed or sabotaged.


Pursuant to your statement that a ramp would facilitate expansion of these companies, my response is that Whipps and Pexco have enjoyed growth and expansion for the past 40 years without the ramp. Furthermore, growth is a function of good management, good marketing and a good product and not the existence or lack of a highway ramp.

Pursuant to your statement that a ramp would reduce wear and tear on roads, I respond by stating that I fail to see the validity of that argument. What is the difference between wear and tear on 2 miles of Daniel Shays and Partridgeville vs. wear and tear on 2 miles of South Athol Road?


Pursuant to your statement that the ramp will reduce air pollution due to engine breaking and downshifting for the steep hills on Hapgood Street, I respond by stating that since trucks use Daniel Shays and not Hapgood, this argument is invalid.


Pursuant to your statement that the ramp would facilitate future economic growth and that it represents a sound element of planning for said growth I respond by agreeing in principle with that argument except as follows:

1 - South Athol Road is presently zoned Residential C which prohibits industrial uses. The town has rejected all previous attempts to rezone that part of town and may continue to do so, making economic development an uncertainty.

2 - Any attempt to persuade voters to rezone may fall on deaf ears. Over the past 20 years we have been told that various plans will bring jobs to town but in each instance the results were failure as follows:

a) North Quabbin Commons was originally presented as an industrial park bringing high paying full-time jobs with benefits. After 12 years, no industries came so it became a shopping center providing part time jobs with no benefits.

b) The Randall Pond Industrial Park has created essentially zero new jobs as its only tenants are either companies which were already doing business in town or which occupied the park after the town deleted the jobs creation requirement.

c) The Orange Industrial Airpark, which started out successful with 100% occupancy and full time employment for 600 residents has since shrunk to one major employer hiring an average of 150 with the rest of the buildings converted to warehouse space which employs essentially no one.

d) The crown jewel of the town's plan to industrialize South Athol is the Bidwell Forest, a 100-acre parcel of land which was presented to the people as a "land bank" for future use, the emphasis being schools, ball fields, fire station and in small print the vague reference to "or other uses". Any attempt to industrialize the Bidwell Forest will most likely result in citizen backlash against what is perceived to be a deceptive bait and switch tactic, putting town plans for that parcel in jeopardy.

Summary

In my estimate there appears to be no credible immediate need for the ramp. The only credible justification would be as an infrastructure investment for future economic development but given the history of incessant industrial failure in our region coupled with the likelihood that zoning changes are rejected and especially relative to the Bidwell Forest, one is hard pressed to make the case that the ramp would be little more than an expensive convenience for the marginal benefit of Girardi, Pexco and Whipps.

There is also this curious matter that the ramp would greatly benefit two sand and gravel companies with vast land holdings bordering the proposed ramp; a circumstance which overshadows the comparatively trivial justifications presented.

I appreciate your efforts to help our town plan for the future as I trust you appreciate my efforts to help our town avoid being exploited and victimized.


Best Regards,
David W. Runyan II